|
Fair enough, but if you do all the work you will run into people who say you 'built it wrong' one way or the other. If you are using 20 point buy, reducing one stat to 8 is acceptable IMHO, but it's your test-bed.
Bottom line is if you can't make the monk as effective as another character class when it's optimised and min-maxed to hell and back, you've proved the point.
Edit: read your notes, and I would say they are interesting. You missed my proposed build for the monk in the other thread, though, and I'll add it here for your reference:
** spoiler omitted **...
Yeah, I haven't got that far yet. The thread is like, 1500 posts! Seriously! No srsly!! Thanks for the build. I'm going back and forth on this. Ideas are:
A) "A build off" - best builder doesn't get kicked off the isla, er, internets!)
B) "If I build them, they will come" - and pick the builds apart, and I'll rebuild them anew
C) "It's my party" - and I can cry, I mean, build if I want to.
I'm leaning towards the second, because then, this will get the best part of "one source to eliminate a variable", and controlling variables is what experiments are about. I'll also "replicate" a newby coming in to a party, saying "I've got the fighter!" and having his more experienced friends tweak it for him to survive the first combat.
|
LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
My monk can hit some and do some damage, but lags behind other 3/4 classes because you can't enhance unarmed strikes in the same way you can regular weapons. I am behind Dabbler in AC and defense, but still comparable to other classes at the same level.
Dabblers monk is extremely effective defensively, but can generally be ignored by CR equal enemies as he can't really hurt them.
|
LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
My monk can hit some and do some damage, but lags behind other 3/4 classes because you can't enhance unarmed strikes in the same way you can regular weapons. I am behind Dabbler in AC and defense, but still comparable to other classes at the same level.
Dabblers monk is extremely effective defensively, but can generally be ignored by CR equal enemies as he can't really hurt them.
Depends on what you mean by "hurt them"...if done right using counters, maneuvers and Stunning Fist he becomes a pest that had better not be ignored.
LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
My monk can hit some and do some damage, but lags behind other 3/4 classes because you can't enhance unarmed strikes in the same way you can regular weapons. I am behind Dabbler in AC and defense, but still comparable to other classes at the same level.
Dabblers monk is extremely effective defensively, but can generally be ignored by CR equal enemies as he can't really hurt them.
Well actually, if you compare him to the dwarf monk from the same thread, he hits for the same average damage, has the same odds to hit, alongside better AC etc. At lower levels, his damage is less but odds to hit slightly better because his hitting stat is maxed out.
Generally though the argument about CR equal enemies is as true of any monk at that level as it is for this one. His maneuvers do help against some, and he lasts longer than most builds. Against one enemy he was the best performer (compared to barbarian and the dwarf monk) because he could use spring attack without being counter-attacked.
|
|
Depends on what you mean by "hurt them"...if done right using counters, maneuvers and Stunning Fist he becomes a pest that had better not be ignored.LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
My monk can hit some and do some damage, but lags behind other 3/4 classes because you can't enhance unarmed strikes in the same way you can regular weapons. I am behind Dabbler in AC and defense, but still comparable to other classes at the same level.
Dabblers monk is extremely effective defensively, but can generally be ignored by CR equal enemies as he can't really hurt them.
The problem being you can't hit them hard enough to get past DR (for stunning fist) if you hit them at all since you are 10% to 20% less likely to hit than a rogue.
And manuevers are only so effective as size increases with CMD.
If your attack bonus can't keep up with the other 3/4 classes, you have a problem. Which I think is the only problem that needs to be addressed, which is why I think a re-write isn't needed, just a fix for attack bonus.
|
|
LOL, Ciretose and I have different monk-building philosophies!
I go for maneuvers, speed and dexterity; he goes for strength. My reasoning is that I can compensate a little for MAD by just focussing on Dex and Wis, make up for lack of strength with maneuvers at low level, number of attacks at higher level (and an Agile AoMF). High AC helps moderate lower Con. It kind of works, takes a lot of skill, but at the end of the day it's a struggle.
My monk can hit some and do some damage, but lags behind other 3/4 classes because you can't enhance unarmed strikes in the same way you can regular weapons. I am behind Dabbler in AC and defense, but still comparable to other classes at the same level.
Dabblers monk is extremely effective defensively, but can generally be ignored by CR equal enemies as he can't really hurt them.
Well actually, if you compare him to the dwarf monk from the same thread, he hits for the same average damage, has the same odds to hit, alongside better AC etc. At lower levels, his damage is less but odds to hit slightly better because his hitting stat is maxed out.
Generally though the argument about CR equal enemies is as true of any monk at that level as it is for this one. His maneuvers do help against some, and he lasts longer than most builds. Against one enemy he was the best performer (compared to barbarian and the dwarf monk) because he could use spring attack without being counter-attacked.
You'd have to link me to the old thread, it's long since lost to me, but I don't remember it keeping up with damage.
If your attack bonus can't keep up with the other 3/4 classes, you have a problem. Which I think is the only problem that needs to be addressed, which is why I think a re-write isn't needed, just a fix for attack bonus.
This is comparing them to the other 3/4ths BAB classes that are TWF, right?
Every 3/4th BAB but the rogue has ways to boost their to-hit, so I'd be really surprised if monks somehow fell behind the rogue when both are TWFing.
I won't be (and so far am not) surprised at the lack of to-hit and DPR for your normal vanilla monk. Barbarians really should be hitting harder, but Rage should make that hitting more erratic than the monk (which I don't think is what's happening, maybe the monk should carry potions of Rage).
The fighter is trained for fighting, that's his whole purpose. He should probably be hitting harder than a Monk as well, especially at lower levels.
To-Hit and DR bypass are the only 2 things I see where the other hitters really outshine the monk in combat. A class feat to allow monk's to use Dex instead of Str for to-hit and damage bonus would likely fix that issue as well as the AC issue (by being less MAD and combining the AC and hitting into 1 stat).
I was having this discussion with another person, when comparing against a Barbarian, can you calculate the stats if the monk drank a potion of Rage?
A few quick things I noticed on the doc.
The monk says it is human, but the stat bonuses look like they are for a dwarf.
That stats add up to 22 points (if I did my quick mental math right).
You listed damage for unarmed at 2d8 at level 1.
As for building a basic monk. My first impression at looking at the monk, before I did any research, was to pump Dex and Wis. Str and Con were secondary and I didn't want to dump Int or Cha. I should be able to do that and not suck, but that is not the case.
If your attack bonus can't keep up with the other 3/4 classes, you have a problem. Which I think is the only problem that needs to be addressed, which is why I think a re-write isn't needed, just a fix for attack bonus.This is comparing them to the other 3/4ths BAB classes that are TWF, right?
Every 3/4th BAB but the rogue has ways to boost their to-hit, so I'd be really surprised if monks somehow fell behind the rogue when both are TWFing.
The problem, Cheapy is that the monk cannot flurry-of-blows all the time. The monk's FoB is his main attack form just as the rogue's sneak attack is his. Therefore if you are comparing them you need to factor in both. A TWF rogue may have lower chances to hit than a flurrying monk, but if he's flanking the damage per hit will be far in excess of the monk's.
Then there's the significant point that for the rogue, combat is secondary. For the monk, it's meant to be primary. If the monk cannot significantly out-hit the rogue even if the rogue isn't TWFing then something is very wrong.
Generally, though, I would say the rogue is likely to be at least +1 ahead of the monk from prime stat (rogues aren't MAD), and from 2nd level through to 17th +1 to +2 ahead from weapon enhancement. Given that at most the monk's flurry BAB is +3 ahead of the rogue's at level 20, the rogue is probably at least going to match the flurrying monk and will be well ahead of the non-flurrying monk.
While the monk has more attacks than the rogue, the rogue can make his attacks count with sneak attack.
@Ciretose: It's from this page onwards for five or six pages.
@Pendin Fust: If you need to buff the monk to make him up to the other classes, you are only underlining the weakness of the monk in comparrison to those classes, not fixing the monk.
@Pendin Fust: If you need to buff the monk to make him up to the other classes, you are only underlining the weakness of the monk in comparrison to those classes, not fixing the monk.
Not saying that we need to buff him up to make him as useful, just curious to put him on "equal" footing with the Barbarian raging. I fully understand that the negatives from raging will probably outline even bolder the inability to hit, but I'm curious what the math comes up with. Unarmed Raging Barbarian vs. Potion of Rage Unarmed Monk.
We did some comparisons here between a barbarian and a monk. A potion of rage wouldn't even start to touch the differences, I fear.
Then again, we aren't looking to make the monk a mobile barbarian, that's not the point. The contention is that the monk has problems functioning as a monk.
Fair enough, thanks for the link. I've scoured that horridly long thread for ages, and I miss a ton I think to "speed" reading.
I still stand by my feeling that a Monk isn't horribly unplayable, but it doesn't do what most people conjure up in their heads when they hear the word Monk. It didn't for me at first.
You're right though, in a straight comparison monk doesn't hold a candle to the other melee classes.
|
|
We did some comparisons here between a barbarian and a monk. A potion of rage wouldn't even start to touch the differences, I fear.
Then again, we aren't looking to make the monk a mobile barbarian, that's not the point. The contention is that the monk has problems functioning as a monk.
Yep, this is the concern. Does the monk have a place in a party? Does everyone else out monk the monk? His key points seem to be:
- AC (from Wis+Dex+Monkishness)
- mobility (from fast move)
- flurry (aka full attack at full BAB +twf +double slice)
- scouting (stealth as a class skill + fast move)
So can the monk scout? ambush? front line? run around and corral/herd/control the enemy (fast move + grapple or trip)?
As for above comments on build to date. It was still a work in progress. It is now up to snuff for you to critique the monks. I still need a Human bonus feat for the more offensively minded monk, but otherwise, have at it!
Edit: I need someone to make an argument for or against the Human bonus feat being Intimidating Prowess. I'd then go on to Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses, in order to lower folks defenses, stunning fist them then go to town.
I don't like Intimidating Prowess simply because now you need to have Cha with Str to make it effective, which leaves 1 dump of Int, which you don't want to do.
Improved Initiative maybe so you can catch people flat-footed?
Why are you only using TWF type fighters and rangers? Just because monk is chained to that underpowered combat style doesn't mean those classes are. And it's not like using two swords somehow causes you to fill a different role / party need than using a greatsword does.
No barbarian to compare to?
Is this core only?
It is core only, because the idea is to put these into the hands of a new/inexperienced player. After all, one of the complaints is the monk is either a "newb trap" or is really only for those with high levels of system mastery. The common wisdom holds that lacking that mastery, the monk falls down as being a viable member of a party. The monk is what you play when you want to switch to "Hard" mode or maybe "Nightmare."
I was interested in the two-weapon fighting because of the claims that x-class can do the monk better than the monk. I must admit this has always been a bit of a trigger for me.
I mostly play wizards, or rather I prefer to play wizards. My wife makes sure I stretch my legs and play other classes and/or roles. But I got tired back in 3.x of hearing how class x could be a better fighter. This was a lot of hokum, until divine metamagic (persistent spell) + night rods became a reality. Any such "better fighter than the fighter" build required 3 to five rounds of buffing, expected there to be lots of lead time before ambushing the enemy in every combat, and then it could lay a smack down the fighter could put out 24/7/365.
So I hear how class x is better than the monk at what the monk supposedly does, and all while purposely gimping what class x does, and I just had to check for myself. I toned down the initial response into this thread. Now I'm asking:
"Can the monk be a viable contributing member to a party?"
"Can a fairly new, non-optimizer, build a monk to fill a role and be satisfied with the results?"
"Does the monk require system mastery?"We shall see.
In another thread a poster use the martial artist monk which does more damage than the core monk, and the fighter while using a cestus did more damage. He also did about the same just using unarmed strikes. It was level 12 though. As for your last 3 questions I will be checking to see what you come up with. :)
I still stand by my feeling that a Monk isn't horribly unplayable, but it doesn't do what most people conjure up in their heads when they hear the word Monk. It didn't for me at first.
The monk isn't unplayable, but it isn't easy to play.
You're right though, in a straight comparison monk doesn't hold a candle to the other melee classes.
Nor can the rogue, but the rogue can do other things that benefit the party, and has some tricks in combat that keep him beneficial to have around. You cannot ignore the rogue, even if his odds to hit are not good, if he gets the drop on you his sneak attack damage is enough to hurt a lot.
Yep, this is the concern. Does the monk have a place in a party? Does everyone else out monk the monk? His key points seem to be:
AC (from Wis+Dex+Monkishness)
The monk has excelent AC, but in my own tests the monk can be surpassed by a sword & board fighter, at least if the monk is not carrying a handy haversack full of mage armour potions at lower levels, and not burning ki, a resource that is sparing. Touch AC there is no doubt the monk is the best you will find.
mobility (from fast move)
Yep, the monk is mobile. Can't hit for toffee if he does move, though.
flurry (aka full attack at full BAB +twf +double slice)
Lots of classes can TWF but you know something? It's not the greatest method of fighting, unless you sword & board it. All combat, regardless of style, comes down to either hitting and doing damage, or by doing something else to hinder, hurt or incapacitate the enemy.
scouting (stealth as a class skill + fast move)
The monk can scout, but needs a few extra skill-points to do it well, which means boosting intelligence which means more MAD. If you want a monk to fulfill a conventional role (healer, caster, tank, scout), though, this is the one he can actually do.
So can the monk scout? ambush? front line? run around and corral/herd/control the enemy (fast move + grapple or trip)?
The problem I have found in practice and theory is that he has problems effectively doing something to the enemy. Reduced odds to hit combined with poor damage output are what plague him. Against higher CR foes, CMD is enough to make that option even less workable than just hitting. And of course stunning fist requires a hit AND damage before the save is made.
|
|
I don't like Intimidating Prowess simply because now you need to have Cha with Str to make it effective, which leaves 1 dump of Int, which you don't want to do.
Improved Initiative maybe so you can catch people flat-footed?
Yeah, that was my second choice. Go first-ish. Charge to stun. Keep them off balance (stun every round). Up the DPR.
But I was thinking of Intimidating Prowess more in line like Weapon Finesse for intimidation checks. Strength would then extra duty for hit, damage, and debuffing the enemy. Sure, you'd take a -1 hit because Cha was the dump stat, but it seems valid. Just not sure of the opportunity cost.
Can you stunning fist whilst Pinning an opponent? Just curious, I honestly have no idea.
If you hit him, I guess so. Pinning leaves you with one hand free I seem to recall, so you can deliver an unarmed strike.
How about making a Drunken master Sensei quingong monk? you would effectively lose all of the usual monk abilities, but instead you would gain.
* Bardic music and all the associated different buff varieties
* ability to use wisdom for all attacks, which we combine with dragonsbreath/scorching ray/spit venom for a good touch attack and reliable damage.
* Insane saves because he is monk and focus on only wis and con (should both be 18 after racial)
* loads of hp and almost unkillable because of the level in temp hp he gets every round he drinks
* ability to buff the party with ANY of the normal monk ki abilities (one member at 6th level all party at 12th level), that means 1 extra attack, +4 ac, or give them high jump and speed, or how about buffing all the party with true strike and 1 bonus attack every round that stacks with haste.
Ofcourse you cant really go into melee, but once you find it boring to buff party members like crazy, or just be drunk, you could always throw scorching rays or some aoe spells out every round without ever worrying about running out of ki. So you are basically like a bard, with worse skills, worse spell selection (ofcourse true strike on all of the party is pretty sick), better hp, better saves, better damage, and ability to never run out of spells (assuming a coupple hundred gallons of alchohol stashed away in your bag of holding).
@Anomander - Are you carrying Dragnipur?!?!?
It should be much easier to hit if you're pinning, no Dex bonus and an additional -4 to AC. If you can Grapple and Pin, then this might be a viable option...but I'm still digressing. Core monk in straight DPR does not win.
and i forgot to mention that he kinda sucks before level 5 due to the fact that he hasnt got his ki abilities yet, so maybe not a good idea if you play in a low level campaign.
The upside is that you can reasonably drink all the beers at your friends gaming house, because you need to be "in character". And ofcourse you get to play a drunk dwarf, all the time.
@ Pendin Fust
Nope Draconus has it right now actually. Maybe i should try to best him and get it back once more...
How about making a Drunken master Sensei quingong monk? you would effectively lose all of the usual monk abilities, but instead you would gain.
The idea is to do an analysis of the CORE monk's problems or lack thereof, so using archetypes is out. No-one is denying that some monk archetypes are quite effective.
@ Dabbler Sorry bout that then, guess i missed the part that it was only core monk, but in that case i personally dont see him stacking up that well.
|
|
How about making a Drunken master Sensei quingong monk? you would effectively lose all of the usual monk abilities, but instead you would gain.The idea is to do an analysis of the CORE monk's problems or lack thereof, so using archetypes is out. No-one is denying that some monk archetypes are quite effective.
Yep, Core only. Though I'm stealing that idea for my next character.
|
|
If your attack bonus can't keep up with the other 3/4 classes, you have a problem. Which I think is the only problem that needs to be addressed, which is why I think a re-write isn't needed, just a fix for attack bonus.This is comparing them to the other 3/4ths BAB classes that are TWF, right?
Every 3/4th BAB but the rogue has ways to boost their to-hit, so I'd be really surprised if monks somehow fell behind the rogue when both are TWFing.
Ok, lets do the math.
So the level 10 rogue has a +7 BaB. So TWF will be +5 to the monks +8.
So Monk starts with a +3 advantage.
The monk has what for strength? Lets say they started with a 16 and the rogue an 18.
The rogue is going to dump both the 4th and 8th in Dex, right? So they are at 20. And Dex is major for them, so they will likely get a +4 item to take them to 24 dex.
So they are at 7 from ability, or + 12 total before adding anything when two weapon fighting, +14 when fighting normally.
The Monk, they need both Wisdom and Str. If they put two in Str, they likely will get a higher wisdom item, or vice versa. So likely we are at 18 for a +2 for wisdom and strength at 4k each.
So we are at +4 from ability and +8 twf (+12) and +11 not TWF.
Now they both have 62k. An AoMF +2 costs 20k. A +2 weapon costs 8k, so the rogue can have two.
The monk has spent 28k, the rogue 32k.
If the monk wants to bump Str higher, that will be 16k instead of 4k for a strength boost item taking the monk to 40k. The next level of AoMF costs 45k so that is out.
The next bonus for a rogue weapon is 16K instead of 8, so they could actually afford to make one or both +3 weapons and still be with reasonable WBL.
The rogue hits just as well TWF (and adds 5d6 damage), and hits much better when not TWF, and didn't give up a neck slot.
The monk unarmed damage at 10th level...1d10.
So average damage of 5.5 + strength.
How about making a Drunken master Sensei quingong monk? you would effectively lose all of the usual monk abilities, but instead you would gain.The idea is to do an analysis of the CORE monk's problems or lack thereof, so using archetypes is out. No-one is denying that some monk archetypes are quite effective.Yep, Core only. Though I'm stealing that idea for my next character.
Go ahead Raniel, glad i can help :)
Also thought it was a pretty awsome way of using drunken master, when i was fiddling around with it about a month ago. The only real downside is that you are kind of weak until about level 5-6 as all the cool abilities doesnt really arrive until then, and the ki pool is still pretty small. By level 12 though i think pretty much all of your party will be loving the monk.
Was thinking of possibly giving him crane style for even more takyness, as he only really needs 3 feets by level 11 for drinking. ofcourse stuff like extra ki or extra bardic music (if your gm is nice and lets you pick it even if you technically dont have it) could also be usefull.
|
|
Oh, quick question. Pathfinder Society has all characters start at 150 gp. The core monk starts with an average of 35gp. I was planning to use the average starting gp, rather than max or rolling. Do people want to see a level 1 layout for PFS using 150 gp? Since I was planning for this to also benefit those playing PFS, I figured it might be helpful to show the monk's alternate layout. Of course, I haven't chosen equipment yet. *shrug
Equally, before you ask. I'm not using traits in my builds. Not every home game will have access to the sources that have traits. Not every GM of a home game will allow them. So no, I won't be adding Rich Parents (starting gold is 900gp), a trait I've seen shot down in a home game and when playing an Adventure Path. Neither will I include your favorite trait. I realize they are 1/2 feats and gain mechanical bonus. I don't see them as always being available.
|
|
The Monk, they need both Wisdom and Str. If they put two in Str, they likely will get a higher wisdom item, or vice versa. So likely we are at 18 for a +2 for wisdom and strength at 4k each.
So we are at +4 from ability and +8 twf (+12) and +11 not TWF.
Not necessarily. The monk player might focus on the hitting side of things, figuring the monk bonus to ac and bracers/mage armor will be enough for AC, while getting a +2 headband for Wis to keep the Stunning fist DC from falling off too much. After all, it doesn't do you much good to have an awesome stunning fist DC, if you can't hit or damage. Equally, having an awesome AC doesn't help if folks are ignoring you because you can't hit or damage.
Now they both have 62k. An AoMF +2 costs 20k. A +2 weapon costs 8k, so the rogue can have two.
The monk has spent 28k, the rogue 32k.
Umm, where did the 8k of the monk and the 16k from the rogue come from? I ask cause I only see you paying for an AoMF for the monk and two weapons for the rogue.
Math from there confuses me based on the above starting numbers.
|
|
The Monk, they need both Wisdom and Str. If they put two in Str, they likely will get a higher wisdom item, or vice versa. So likely we are at 18 for a +2 for wisdom and strength at 4k each.
So we are at +4 from ability and +8 twf (+12) and +11 not TWF.
Not necessarily. The monk player might focus on the hitting side of things, figuring the monk bonus to ac and bracers/mage armor will be enough for AC, while getting a +2 headband for Wis to keep the Stunning fist DC from falling off too much. After all, it doesn't do you much good to have an awesome stunning fist DC, if you can't hit or damage. Equally, having an awesome AC doesn't help if folks are ignoring you because you can't hit or damage.
Now they both have 62k. An AoMF +2 costs 20k. A +2 weapon costs 8k, so the rogue can have two.
The monk has spent 28k, the rogue 32k.
Umm, where did the 8k of the monk and the 16k from the rogue come from? I ask cause I only see you paying for an AoMF for the monk and two weapons for the rogue.
Math from there confuses me based on the above starting numbers.
Monk bought a +2 Strength Belt and a +2 Wisdom belt. The rogue got a +4 Dex belt.
Oh, quick question. Pathfinder Society has all characters start at 150 gp. The core monk starts with an average of 35gp. I was planning to use the average starting gp, rather than max or rolling. Do people want to see a level 1 layout for PFS using 150 gp? Since I was planning for this to also benefit those playing PFS, I figured it might be helpful to show the monk's alternate layout. Of course, I haven't chosen equipment yet. *shrug
Equally, before you ask. I'm not using traits in my builds. Not every home game will have access to the sources that have traits. Not every GM of a home game will allow them. So no, I won't be adding Rich Parents (starting gold is 900gp), a trait I've seen shot down in a home game and when playing an Adventure Path. Neither will I include your favorite trait. I realize they are 1/2 feats and gain mechanical bonus. I don't see them as always being available.
Sure. 150 gp all. Starting w/ less gold as a monk is dumb (especially if playing a zen archer...).
And traits aren't even an issue if this is core only.
So...may I suggest for the purposes of this test, we ignore the kerfuffle over flurry of blows (you apparently need 2 different weapons even though that's clearly a load of bs)? As it is, we're testing if monk can compete. No need to further nerf him in this test.
|
|
Sure. 150 gp all. Starting w/ less gold as a monk is dumb (especially if playing a zen archer...).
And traits aren't even an issue if this is core only.
So...may I suggest for the purposes of this test, we ignore the kerfuffle over flurry of blows (you apparently need 2 different weapons even though that's clearly a load of bs)? As it is, we're testing if monk can compete. No need to further nerf him in this test.
Well, I'll take a consensus on the flurry rules. Since part of this test is for home games, I figure it would be no problem to ignore the requirement to flurry with two weapons and then make a note about the extra cost for a second weapon in the equipment section for PFS games.
The nice thing is, you don't really need a silver weapon, and a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon. Your fist will eventually be adamantine, and +3 weapons ignore silver/cold iron. Now if it proves that special materials are needed before +3 can be achieved by GMW or paid for, I might look at buying them earlier.
On equipment, I guess we can go with everyone getting 150 gp, as this would eliminate one more variable at 1st (wealth disparity). This balances out with WBL being the rule at 2+. But 1 less variable is always good.
I was gonna mention not using traits, Raniel, but you already covered that.
I like the idea of the Monk using PFS's standard of 150 gp. You're trying to eliminate as many variables as possible. However, to keep it "Core" you might just go ahead and use the average of what the classes should have in money.
Considering that a newbie player could pick up the Core rules and see that the Monk gets 1d6 X 10 gp, so he'd roll it out and average 35. If you're trying to look at it from a purely newbie viewpoint, I think you should use the 35 gp average.
Possibly you should make two versions of each Monk, one using 150 gp PFS standard, and one using the 35 gp Core average before comparing them to other classes using the 150 and Core average as well.
[Edit] By the way, Raniel, since you're mostly interested in playing Wizards, you might be interested in this post where I make a Monk look like a pseudo-bard.
Sure. 150 gp all. Starting w/ less gold as a monk is dumb (especially if playing a zen archer...).
And traits aren't even an issue if this is core only.
So...may I suggest for the purposes of this test, we ignore the kerfuffle over flurry of blows (you apparently need 2 different weapons even though that's clearly a load of bs)? As it is, we're testing if monk can compete. No need to further nerf him in this test.
Well, I'll take a consensus on the flurry rules. Since part of this test is for home games, I figure it would be no problem to ignore the requirement to flurry with two weapons and then make a note about the extra cost for a second weapon in the equipment section for PFS games.
The nice thing is, you don't really need a silver weapon, and a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon. Your fist will eventually be adamantine, and +3 weapons ignore silver/cold iron. Now if it proves that special materials are needed before +3 can be achieved by GMW or paid for, I might look at buying them earlier.
On equipment, I guess we can go with everyone getting 150 gp, as this would eliminate one more variable at 1st (wealth disparity). This balances out with WBL being the rule at 2+. But 1 less variable is always good.
The problem with Enhancement is that if a Monk picks up an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 he doesn't get the same advantages that others with a +3 weapon do.
The spell used to make an AoMF is Greater Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Fang has this line in it's spell description.
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.
So a +3 weapon bypasses DR Silver and Cold Iron, but an AoMF does not because the spell used is explicitly called out as not bypassing DR with the exception of DR/Magic.
Sure. 150 gp all. Starting w/ less gold as a monk is dumb (especially if playing a zen archer...).
And traits aren't even an issue if this is core only.
So...may I suggest for the purposes of this test, we ignore the kerfuffle over flurry of blows (you apparently need 2 different weapons even though that's clearly a load of bs)? As it is, we're testing if monk can compete. No need to further nerf him in this test.
Well, I'll take a consensus on the flurry rules. Since part of this test is for home games, I figure it would be no problem to ignore the requirement to flurry with two weapons and then make a note about the extra cost for a second weapon in the equipment section for PFS games.
The nice thing is, you don't really need a silver weapon, and a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon. Your fist will eventually be adamantine, and +3 weapons ignore silver/cold iron. Now if it proves that special materials are needed before +3 can be achieved by GMW or paid for, I might look at buying them earlier.
On equipment, I guess we can go with everyone getting 150 gp, as this would eliminate one more variable at 1st (wealth disparity). This balances out with WBL being the rule at 2+. But 1 less variable is always good.
The problem with Enhancement is that if a Monk picks up an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 he doesn't get the same advantages that others with a +3 weapon do.
The spell used to make an AoMF is Greater Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Fang has this line in it's spell description.
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.So a +3 weapon bypasses DR Silver and Cold Iron, but an AoMF does not because the spell used is explicitly called out as not bypassing DR with the...
A magic item using a spell for the purpose of creation does not mean it is as limited as the spell is. I was used to believe this also, and while one can extrapolate this the RAW does not support the AoMF not being able to bypass DR.
As another poster said-->"For example, Merciful weapons require cure light wounds, but you can not actually hit a friend with them and heal them."
|
|
The problem with Enhancement is that if a Monk picks up an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 he doesn't get the same advantages that others with a +3 weapon do.
The spell used to make an AoMF is Greater Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Fang has this line in it's spell description.
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.So a +3 weapon bypasses DR Silver and Cold Iron, but an AoMF does not because the spell used is explicitly called out as not bypassing DR with the...
Yeah, I was more thinking a +3 sai or siangham or whatever for the purpose of getting through DR and changing the damage type. AoMF in my mind is for getting special abilities on your fists. GMW is for making your fists magically delicious.
I know that we're sticking to core monk, which I agree where the monk is weakest, but I think we need to compare the core monk with other 3/4th base classes availible in the game, like the vanilla Magus.
Besides being another popular 3/4s BAB, it's arcane pool is similar to the Magus's Ki pool. Furthermore, they're a class with mystical abilities(magus arcana) and martial combat prowess(Their spell combat is comparable to flurry of blows since they're both TWF light)... Yet they're generally considered to be a very stream lined/effective class. I think it would be useful to comapre the vanilla variations of these classes.
The nice thing is, you don't really need a silver weapon, and a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon. Your fist will eventually be adamantine, and +3 weapons ignore silver/cold iron. Now if it proves that special materials are needed before +3 can be achieved by GMW or paid for, I might look at buying them earlier.
Not so! A +3 AoMF costs 45,000gp, and you can't afford that until 13th level at the earliest. If your monk is using a +3 weapon when he wants to be fighting unarmed, you have another resource problem. My monks (indeed, any combat class I have) carry a cold iron and a silver weapon.
I have found getting through DR to be a very serious problem with the monk, at least with their unarmed attacks.
Interestingly, style feats provide an alternative to bludgeoning weapon damage, with several styles presenting alternatives (eg slashing damage with Tiger Style, piercing with Snake Style).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nice thing is, you don't really need a silver weapon, and a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon. Your fist will eventually be adamantine, and +3 weapons ignore silver/cold iron. Now if it proves that special materials are needed before +3 can be achieved by GMW or paid for, I might look at buying them earlier.
Here's the problem with that: magic weapons ignore DR based upon their enhancement bonus (the actual bonus, not the total of enhancement bonuses and special properties). The amulet of mighty fists is not a magic weapon. It is a wondrous item that bestows an enhancement bonus (or special weapon property, or some combination of the two) onto unarmed strikes and natural weapons, much like the greater magic weapon and greater magic fang spells: neither of which ignore any DR except magic.
So, even a +5 AoMF only bypasses DR/Magic, not Cold Iron, Silver, Adamantine, or any type of alignment.
Same with the new bodywraps of mighty striking.
This is why the monk class has such an issue with his unarmed strikes and DR. He can already bypass DR/Magic thanks to ki strike at 4th level. At 10th level, he can bypass DR/Lawful . . . which is possessed by (I believe) three entire creatures in all of the bestiaries published to date. He isn't able to bypass DR/Adamantine until 16th level . . . well after the point where everyone else has had a +4 weapon . . . or just purchased an adamantine battleaxe or some such.
MA
So, I figured, “let’s do this with maths!”
I didn't make it much past the first post, and honestly I don't really plan on it, but doing it "by the math" is the major problem with the the "Monks suck" crowd. All they look at is math. What never seems to get taken into account is the unquantifiable things. Give me a numerical value for the usefulness of evasion. What percent of the time will the monk avoid damage that a fighter takes on the nose. Give me a number for how useful not having an armor check penalty at first level is. Tell me exactly how many AoO a Monk is able to avoid due to his mobility that a fighter or ranger can't avoid. Tell how many times a Monk will save his party by being able to Dimension Door, and how much being immune to poison helped him over the fighter. How many times was a monk able to bring himself back from 0 hit points with his healing, and what number does that equate to for comparison?
The other problem is that when you compare the monk and fighter you look and say the fighter has a 20 to hit, the monk only has an 18 to hit, the fighter will hit 10% more often. That math seems easy and straight forward, however what it doesn't take into account is that the average enemy AC is 15, so in actuality both the fighter and the monk have a 95% chance to hit.
But here's the real rub, do your math, it doesn't really matter what the outcome is the Monks Suck crowd will still say Monks Suck, and the Monks are Fine crowd will still say Monks are Fine. There was a discussion about a fighter vs monk using average die rolls the monk beat all fighter builds but 1. The one the monk couldn't beat would be all but useless in anything but this particular fight, how many people do you think that convinced? I'd say roughly zero. I've tried to use the published Adventure Paths and their encounters to show that a monk has no trouble hitting things with the monsters presented, who do you suppose that convinced?
Where was this discussion at Jodokai? I've never seen it, but I also don't frequent every corner of the board. I'd love to see this for myself truthfully. There have been lots of talk about comparing Monks, but I've never really truly seen it done very well. Usually it devolves into someone saying stuff like, "But you didn't use his tactics right, or he would never have done that, he would have done this."
If someone else already did the math, could you link it?
BTW, all those things you mentioned, could, actually, be represented by math. I'm not a math person, so I can't show you, but I know others can.
|
|
So, I figured, “let’s do this with maths!”I didn't make it much past the first post, and honestly I don't really plan on it, but doing it "by the math" is the major problem with the the "Monks suck" crowd. All they look at is math. What never seems to get taken into account is the unquantifiable things. Give me a numerical value for the usefulness of evasion. What percent of the time will the monk avoid damage that a fighter takes on the nose. Give me a number for how useful not having an armor check penalty at first level is. Tell me exactly how many AoO a Monk is able to avoid due to his mobility that a fighter or ranger can't avoid. Tell how many times a Monk will save his party by being able to Dimension Door, and how much being immune to poison helped him over the fighter. How many times was a monk able to bring himself back from 0 hit points with his healing, and what number does that equate to for comparison?
The question comes down to how often these "unquantifiable" abilities are used. How situational are they? How do they compare to other classes abilities? The paladin's lay on hands as a self-heal works better to allow for healing + full attack. Equally, how smart is the creature using the abilities? If it has a modicum of intelligence, the ability to plan, and some knowledge of what previous adventurers have done, would it target a mid to high level monk with poison? enchantments? area affects with a reflex save?
The idea isn't how well a clever, system smart person can make use of a monk to save the party's bacon time and again. The question is the monk a class that only system smart people should play? Can a new or inexperienced player make a contribution to the party with the monk? Does the monk work without knowing how to "game the system" or without needing to read a bunch of "how to" guides?
The other problem is that when you compare the monk and fighter you look and say the fighter has a 20 to hit, the monk only has an 18 to hit, the fighter will hit 10% more often. That math seems easy and straight forward, however what it doesn't take into account is that the average enemy AC is 15, so in actuality both the fighter and the monk have a 95% chance to hit.
Going up against a level appropriate enemy is the point of the exercise. Many who say the monk is too weak seemed to be basing this off of Damage Per Round, which is based of of the chance to hit a level appropriate enemy. I am trying to build Core characters and have them face level appropriate enemies. I am not doing something like the carnival ride height chart. This isn't some "you must be this tall to ride this ride." The metric isn't the numbers on the monk or the fighter. The metric is the ECL-appropriate monster. Can the monk hit that often enough to be useful (i.e. before the monster eats a party memeber)?
But here's the real rub, do your math, it doesn't really matter what the outcome is the Monks Suck crowd will still say Monks Suck, and the Monks are Fine crowd will still say Monks are Fine. There was a discussion about a fighter vs monk using average die rolls the monk beat all fighter builds but 1. The one the monk couldn't beat would be all but useless in anything but this particular fight, how many people do you think that convinced? I'd say roughly zero. I've tried to use the published Adventure Paths and their encounters to show that a monk has no trouble hitting things with the monsters presented, who do you suppose that convinced?
One of the issues there comes in the form of who builds the monk, and who builds the fighter. Build offs always have the "out" that the build isn't highlighting the class. The build is really highlighting the skills of the one who built it. What I've seen time and again is "you build the fighter, I'll build the monk, and I'll win! Promise!"
In this case, I'm building everything. I'm making choices along the way that someone would make with only the CRB and a little help from friends. After all, if you are new, wouldn't you have at least one experienced person look over your work to make sure you didn't goof on your hit points, AC, or skills? I'm working from the assumption that a new player was told to make a fighter type and make sure it can do damage. Know this hypothetical player is faced with a choice in classes (barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger). Who does he pick? Since there is a party already set, and this character won't be the only primary damager, who would the party accept as the second direct damage dealer?
Looking at the monk's movement, flurry ability, and improved AC, it is not unreasonable for our subject to think the monk should be able to punch it out standing next to the fighter/barbarian/ranger. Does this hold up?
Sure, in the end, confirmation bias may kick in with some of the thread readers. They may look at my results and think "yeah, but he forgot . . ." or "he didn't put enough DR on that monster." Such folks may use a flaw as "proof" my test is useless to them. I'd prefer they voice their concerns so I can either make the appropriate changes, or defend my choices. All of this to get as much of an unbiased view as possible.
I'm hoping that by posting the builds, the ECL-appropriate monster "Genero the Terrible", and the DPRs for each encounter, that a clear conclusion can be drawn on the monk's level of required "system mastery." I'm not even requiring the monk to out damage folks. I just want to see if it is a viable choice. I hope so, but I am reserving judgment until the end.
But here's the real rub, do your math, it doesn't really matter what the outcome is the Monks Suck crowd will still say Monks Suck, and the Monks are Fine crowd will still say Monks are Fine. There was a discussion about a fighter vs monk using average die rolls the monk beat all fighter builds but 1. The one the monk couldn't beat would be all but useless in anything but this particular fight, how many people do you think that convinced? I'd say roughly zero. I've tried to use the published Adventure Paths and their encounters to show that a monk has no trouble hitting things with the monsters presented, who do you suppose that convinced?
I was a part of that other thread, too, and I'll try to sum up the thread since I can't seem to find it.
First of all, it was a thread about 1v1 pvp in a combat box at level 20… which is a bit silly, but it was what the OP of the other thread was interested in. I mean, half (if not more) of the monk's strengths don't contribute to a head-to-head cage match. Jodokai pointed this out very well in the other thread.
That being said, Jodokai was able to put together exactly one build that could consistently beat a good number of fighter builds. This one build from Jodokai pushed Wisdom and Dexterity pretty hard for the purpose of having good AC, good attack rolls, good saves, and a really, really, really strong Stunning Fist/Quivering Palm DC. It was a fort save DC so high that even most fighters would struggle to hit the DC with any consistency. The problem (that many of the other posters pointed out) was that he attained this high Wisdom by pushing wisdom as high as he could, then by making his character Venerable but using the Timeless Body monk feature to ignore the penalties to physical scores while enjoying the mental stat boosts. It's a tactic that works if you're building a level 17+ monk who starts venerable. The problem is that while playing level 1 - 16, either you're venerable -- which makes your physical scores trash, meaning its' unlikely you'll ever actually land the stunning fist in the first place. Or you're adventuring while in a normal age range, and your wisdom is much lower and your Stunning Fist DC is much more manageable.
In the end, Jodokai was able to post one monk build that was capable of beating the majority of fighters, but who was in turn beat out by a few specific fighter builds. I think that proves the case that they're not better than the fighter in these circumstances.
I will totally agree with Jodokai, though, that running these numbers won't necessarily prove the balance, and that there will inevitably still be people who cry about how broken or underpowred the monk is. It's apparently what some people do.
EDIT: I found the link << clicky! clicky! (keep in mind the specific builds mentioned don't show up for about half the thread... maybe later.)
All that being said, is a Wisdom-first monk who gets the most of out his Stunning Fist one of the builds being put together for this exercise?